"Art" or abuse?
 

Cruelty if you ask me.



Guillermo Habacuc Vargas had 2 children catch this dog. He paid the kids for this. He then chained the dog and used the dog as “art”. He told everyone not to feed this dog. The dog died in the gallery. He calls himself an artist. I call him an animal abuser. In that event, (in which the dog died) he was chosen to represent his country in the “Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008?.
October 18th, 2007 | by Ginnie

Read more...

jesus christ.
WHAT THE FUCK
he killed a dog?
WHY THE FUCK WOULD SOMEONE KILL A FUCKING DOG?!?!?!?!
he should be arrested and put on display and the guards shouldnt let anyone feed him till he dies in a pile of his own feces after he is forced to eat them, for not having any other form of nutrition
FUCK

that's fucking sick.

it's interesting that apparently nobody cared his "incense burner that burned an ounce of marijauna and 175 “rock’ of crack cocaine" though.

super.

Speaking as someone who has voluntarily seen and enjoyed two Costes performances, I'm gonna go ahead and say this is not art.
French people peeing on each other and running through the audience naked; now that is art.

These goldfish on the other hand, didn't feel anything... :rolleyes:
2003^

This man's not an artist, now he should chain himself and die in a gallery, he'd see what his "art" is about

chaining the dog is one thing... may make the dog sad, but starving it to death is cruel and reprehensible. that being said, i don't agree at all with the idea that it then ceases to be art. it irritates me quite a lot when i hear people say "my four year old could do that, that's not art." that might make it bad art, but art none the less. the piece shown above is cruel and disgusting art that should not be afforded any of the tolerance given to something like peeing on each other or on a crucifix. but it is still art.

who knew?

you sick fuck.

I stood in the back, for what it's worth.

so, you stood behind people while they peed.

all that business about being "a stall man" was nothing more than a poorly disguised excuse.

zip 'em up boys, we got a PEE WATCHER.

People in public bathrooms don't usually CHARGE ADMISSION.

i never said amything about whether its art or not, cause i dont really care if it is art or not. it very well may be art, but its sick. and shitty art. and he should still chain himself to a gallery and starve to death.
he still is a sick fuck, art or not

do you think that yr making a better case for yrself by stating that you PAY people so that you can watch them pee?

minnesotans and their bathroom habbits man.

I think that this thread really proves, that just because you call it "art" doesn't mean that it's not something else.

fucking SICK!

not shocking. :rolleyes:

i never said you said anything about whether it is art or not... it was simply the subtext of the original question: "art" or abuse? which implies that they are mutually exclusive.

...so why get defensive? we agree it is sick and shitty art. i was simply making a point about the way these things are always debated. and stating my belief that saying something is not art, when it clearly is (i.e. was done by an artist and shown in a gallery) is not only a useless semantic gesture, but fails to address what is ACTUALLY wrong with the artwork in question.

my point exactly.

this is horrible!!!

We as a western culture find it cruel, but in other countries they starve dogs in confined cages and then beat them to death before dining on their flesh. It apparently makes the meat taste better.

At least they don't call it art.

Some people can be too postmodern for their own good. Irony is easy, cruelty is still cruel.

i wasnt getting defensive-all is cool:cool:
and pbradley basically summed it up quite well